On May 21, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Timur Tabi,
In message 4BF6E5DF.5020306@freescale.com you wrote:
So here's a better version of that function that rounds to the nearest MHz and is of a proper coding style:
Why do we need that?
Um, because you complained about it?
I mean, why do we need that function? strmhz() already includes rounding. Are you really rounding, or cutting off precsion?
Also, because this is silly:
Clock Configuration: CPU0:799.992 MHz, CPU1:799.992 MHz, CCB:399.996 MHz, DDR:299.997 MHz (599.994 MT/s data rate) (Asynchronous), LBC:25 MHz
Why display 799.992 MHZ when 800 MHz makes more sense?
Hm... does it really make more sense? Or is it just less precise, or do you hush up an error?
799.992 MHz seems to be 24 * 33,333,000 Hz. Are you sure this is the exact quartz frequency on your board? If yes, then the number printed should probably remain 799.992 MHz. Or is it 33,333,333 Hz? Or 33,000,000 ?
Its a 33,333,000 Hz input crystal so the math is correct. Rounding in the ICS code is wrong.
- k